Torres Strait Islander uncles Paul Kabai and Pabai Pabai have launched an appeal to the full Federal Court to overturn the finding that the Commonwealth does not owe a duty of care to Torres Strait Islander people to protect them from the impacts of climate change.
The uncles' lawyer, Brett Speigel, said the team was pleased with a number of the findings made by the judge in July, and those findings would form part of the appeal.
"The court identified that Torres Strait Islanders are facing an existential threat and that the Commonwealth did not use the best available science in setting its emissions targets," he said.
"But the court found that it wasn't in a position, based on how it interpreted existing precedents, to take any action.
"What we're doing here is appealing to the full court of the Federal Court of Australia to ask that it take steps that the trial judge felt he was unable to."
Uncle Paul Kabai from Saibai Island, one of the two lead plaintiffs, said the Torres Strait community was disappointed by the court's decision but was looking forward to taking the next step.
"I'm happy that we are appealing. We hope to have a better outcome," he said.
"We want a better future for our next generation to come."
The July judgment was the first time an Australian court has ruled on whether the Commonwealth has a legal duty of care to protect its citizens from the impacts of climate change and whether cultural loss should be compensated.
Justice Michael Wigney found the setting of emissions targets was a matter of "core government policy" and thus beyond the scope of negligence law.
He acknowledged the devastating impact climate change was having on Torres Strait Islander culture, or Ailan Kastom, but did not consider it open to him, as a single judge, to recognise their cultural loss in law for the first time.
He said such changes would need to come from legislative reform or higher courts.
During the hearings, the federal court travelled to the Torres Strait Islands to witness the impacts of climate change firsthand.
It saw evidence of coastal erosion, soil salinity that prevented the farming of crops, and the destruction of ancestral graves.
Politicians debate climate targets
The uncles argued Australia — a high-emitting country in per capita terms — was not contributing its fair share to the global effort to reduce emissions and hold temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
They were found to have proven many of the factual elements of their case, including that the climate targets set by the Coalition in 2015, 2020 and 2021 were not consistent with the best available science to meet this goal.
In his judgment, Justice Wigney said the Coalition did not "engage with or give real or genuine consideration to the best available science".
As debate over the policy of "net zero emissions by 2050" plays out in Parliament House this week, Uncle Paul Kabai has urged both sides of government to commit to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.
"They need to do something, put their words into action," he said.
"We don't want the target to be up more than 1.5 [degrees] otherwise we will be sinking up here in the Torres Strait, and the Pacific islands or other people that are affected by climate change.
"We don't want to be climate change refugees, we are Australians."
